EDUC 432

Willie Callahan and Kimberly Delfs

April 21, 1999

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER v. R.M. SMITH

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[February 23, 1999]

This case concerns the eligibility of Renee M. Smith to compete in athletics during her graduate studies. Smith attended St. Bonaventure University as an undergraduate where she played collegiate volleyball for two years, during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 athletic seasons. Smith graduated from St. Bonaventure in two and one-half years and elected to continue graduate studies elsewhere. During the 1994-1995 athletic season, she was enrolled in the graduate program at Hofstra University, and during the 1995-1996 athletic season, she attended the University of Pittsburgh. Smith sought to play intercollegiate volleyball throughout both of the years, but she was denied permission by the NCAA to participate due to postbaccalaureate restrictions. Although she petitioned for a waiver, the NCAA simply refused to grant it.

Smith felt that she was discriminated against on the basis of Title IX when she was denied the chance to participate in athletics at the graduate level. Therefore, in August 1996, Smith filed a lawsuit alleging that, in addition to other things, the NCAA failed to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by not granting her a waiver to play based on her sex. The NCAA attempted to have the claim dismissed on the grounds that it did not receive federal assistance, which would exempt it from compliance with Title IX. However, Smith countered this argument by claiming that the NCAA benefited from its member institutions which were federally funded; therefore, the NCAA was indirectly federally funded.

The district court dismissed Smith's case, claiming she had not formed a sound connection between the NCAA and federal financial assistance, and, in turn, she could not claim that Title IX was applicable. Smith amended her claim.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's decision. At the appellate level, the court agreed with the district court that Smith did not have ample evidence that the NCAA was federally funded, but it felt her change in claim "plainly alleges that the NCAA receives dues from member institutions, which receive federal funds." Hence, Smith's changed allegations would be evidence to claim a Title IX violation.

The NCAA then petitioned for Supreme Court review, claiming that the decision did not comply with Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U.S. 597 (1986). Pet. for Cert. 7-15. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to determine if, in fact, a private organization not receiving federal assistance can be subject to Title IX simply because it receives dues from institutions that do receive federal assistance.

In Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, a group representing disabled veterans claimed that they were discriminated against by the airlines. The argument was that since the airports were federally funded for construction projects, the airlines were indirectly federally funded; therefore, they felt the airlines failed to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The courts decided that any organization that receives federal money, directly or indirectly, is a recipient within the meaning of Title IX.

Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, (1984) is a court decision of importance within the NCAA v. Smith case as well. Here, the decision was that institutions that enroll students, who receive federal funds intended for educational expenses, are federally funded. In addition, the court concluded that Title IX could be applied whether an educational organization receives money directly or indirectly.

In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the Third Circuit's decision that the NCAA was subject to Title IX, if in fact it received dues from its federally funded members did not agree with the Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America decision. In addition, the Supreme Court claimed that no allegation existed that the NCAA uses the dues from its federally funded institutions for student aid as claimed in Grove City College v. Bell. The Supreme Court stressed that Title IX does not cover an entity, which simply receives the benefits of federal funding. Only entities that receive federal assistance directly or through an intermediary are federal recipients and subject to coverage by Title IX. Entities that simply receive economic benefits from federal assistance are not covered. For these reasons, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA cannot be sued under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and remanded the case for further proceedings complying with this decision.